 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Lens?
Ive not long ago purchased an Canon eos 20D. I was wondering b4 i go and spend alot of money on a lens or 2 just how important the lens is for picture quality.. It may sound like a n00b question .. well thats because it is. Im new to photography and would rather purchase what i need for the future now rather than upgrade later on down the track because ive "out grown my lens".I currently have the ef-s 18 - 55mm lens that came with the camera and im trying to figure out what i need to buy for what. At the moment im looking 4 a good lens for people shots, and one with a bit of zoom on it. I have asked at the stores but im always handed the most expensive lens on the rack with the IS USM blah blah, they maybe righ,t but considering the bigger the sale the bigger the commission, I dont really trust them to give me a neutral opinion. Any help would be much appreciated Brad T Brads_an_n00b: > im trying to figure out what i need to buy for what. At the moment im looking > 4 a good lens for people shots, and one with a bit of zoom on it. What you need is the 50/1.8 lense. It is cheap, fast, and has a pretty high optical quality. With the crop factor, it is also quite useful as a portrait lense, although different photographers have different preferences there. Once you have worked with the 50/1.8 for a while, you can decide whether you also need the same optical quality in different focal ranges. Because if you do, it is going to get expensive. Thomas > Brads_an_n00b: >> im trying to figure out what i need to buy for what. At the moment im >> looking >> 4 a good lens for people shots, and one with a bit of zoom on it. You get what you pay for. also your printing habits will come into play. unless you print 8x10 or bigger quality isn't too critical. Due to the cropping of normal lenses by the smaller than 35mm film sensor you are using the 'sweet spot' of your lens. Most lenses work fine in the centre area but fall down towards the edges. Its why not only depth of field but image quality usually picks up with the smaller apertures. As for portraits traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you want just the face. Shorter focal lengths make the features exaggerated. Use 28mm someone will have a smallish face and a huge nose. unlike most consumer goods lenses tend to be reasonably safe purchases 2nd hand. the 28-105 3.5/4.5 lens is very good. Not to be confused with the cheap and cheerful 4/5.6 version with the plastic mount. The other thing regarding people shots and portraiture is that bitingly sharp isn't always what is required. You can retain detail even with softer lenses. Soft lens specifically for portraiture are available. Cheaper alternative is a soft focus filter. Much of the special effects filters of yesterday are now redundant thanks to digital. If you are at all adept with computers you'll find you can compensate for alot of flaws by shooting in raw mode. you can then allow for vignetting, chromatic aberration, sharpen etc. A rookie mistake is overuse of the sharpen tool. As for IS and USM, usm is most useful if you really must operate quietly or very quickly. Given the loud shutter and mirror slap of the 20D its not an issue. If you like candid shots fast focus might be advantageous. Image stabilisation is for low light hand held use. A quality sturdy heavy tripod is a good investment. Especially for formal portraiture. Don't bother with anything cheap or made of plastic. If you are feeling very rich the 24-70 2.8L is one of the best in the market and given the cropping factor is long enough for your needs. > As for portraits > traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you want > just the face. Shorter focal lengths make the features exaggerated. Use > 28mm someone will have a smallish face and a huge nose. That's a myth. http://hannemyr.com/photo/crop.html#per > You get what you pay for. Sometimes. The fixed focal length lenses provide very high quality for less $$$ at the minor expense of convenience. > Its why not only depth of field but image > quality usually picks up with the smaller apertures. Image quality with today's technology is more likely related to the skill of the person taking the photo than to the equipment they're using. > As for IS and USM, usm is most useful if you really must operate quietly or > very quickly. Given the loud shutter and mirror slap of the 20D its not an > issue. If you like candid shots fast focus might be advantageous. Image > stabilisation is for low light hand held use. Or for hand holding/mono-podding long lenses. > A quality sturdy heavy tripod > is a good investment. If it's good and heavy enough you won't even have to worry about taking it with you as it will remain leaning against the wall of your closet. > Especially for formal portraiture. Don't bother with > anything cheap or made of plastic. Ian must be a tripod salesman. <g> > If you are feeling very rich the 24-70 2.8L is one of the best in the market > and given the cropping factor is long enough for your needs. Agree.  SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com > > As for portraits > > traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you want > > just the face. Shorter focal lengths make the features exaggerated. Use > > 28mm someone will have a smallish face and a huge nose. > > That's a myth. That focal lengths change the perspective of the image is a myth. However, if you put a 28mm lens on your 35mm camera to take a head-and-shoulders portrait, you're going to end up very close to the subject -- and *camera position* DOES control perspective. As a purist, I too have railed against the belief that focal length controls perspective. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > However, if you put a 28mm lens on your 35mm camera to take a > head-and-shoulders portrait, you're going to end up very close to the > subject -- and *camera position* DOES control perspective. Indeed, but you won't be so close with an APS sized sensor and a 28mm lens if you want to fill the same amount of frame with the same amount of face. Besides, wide angles can be fun for portraits.. http://www.marklauter.com/albums/friendsnfamily/thecrew/steve/_MG_9721.JPG.html http://www.marklauter.com/albums/friendsnfamily/thecrew/todd/iMG_9144.jpg.html :) SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com > > However, if you put a 28mm lens on your 35mm camera to take a > > head-and-shoulders portrait, you're going to end up very close to the > > subject -- and *camera position* DOES control perspective. > > Indeed, but you won't be so close with an APS sized sensor and a 28mm lens > if you want to fill the same amount of frame with the same amount of face. Sure; I *did* say "on your 35mm camera" to make that clear. (I find my old 24mm f2 is quite useful for a walkaround lens in dark conditions on my 1.5x DSLR). > Besides, wide angles can be fun for portraits.. Definitely. I'm not very good using them to make interesting portraits, but I've seen a lot by other people over the years. > http://www.marklauter.com/albums/friendsnfamily/thecrew/steve/_MG_9721.JPG.html > > http://www.marklauter.com/albums/friendsnfamily/thecrew/todd/iMG_9144.jpg.html > > :) I like the first better; and possibly I'm already getting tired of the trick by the second . I tend to get mostly effects I *don't* want, like <http://www.dd-b.net/gallery/picpage/ddb/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/0300x-misc?pic=d db%20200603%20200-01>. (Shot on film and scanned, so no EXIF info; but I believe 24mm, quite wide for film). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > > However, if you put a 28mm lens on your 35mm camera to take a > > > head-and-shoulders portrait, you're going to end up very close to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > my old 24mm f2 is quite useful for a walkaround lens in dark > conditions on my 1.5x DSLR). Yeah, 24mm would be a very nice walk around. I even shoot some days with only the 50mm - sometimes its fun to work within strict constraints. :) > > Besides, wide angles can be fun for portraits.. > > Definitely. I'm not very good using them to make interesting > portraits, but I've seen a lot by other people over the years. http://www.marklauter.com/albums/friendsnfamily/thecrew/steve/_MG_9721.JPG.html http://www.marklauter.com/albums/friendsnfamily/thecrew/todd/iMG_9144.jpg.html > > :) > > I like the first better; and possibly I'm already getting tired of the > trick by the second . Yeah, if you see them in a sequence like this they get old fast, but showing a friend this silly portrait of themselves for the first time always provides a good laugh. :) > I tend to get mostly effects I *don't* want, like <http://www.dd-b.net/gallery/picpage/ddb/SnapshotAlbum/data/2006/0300x-misc? pic=ddb%20200603%20200-01>. > (Shot on film and scanned, so no EXIF info; but I believe 24mm, quite > wide for film). It's not that bad really - in fact, it seems a rather nice environment portrait IMHO. But be sure I have taken at least 4 of the worst photos ever taken of my girlfriend with a very wide angle lens. :) SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com >> > As for portraits >> > traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That focal lengths change the perspective of the image is a myth. see beach bums fun photos "ian lincoln" <dragonslayer@whocares.com> wrote in message news:sW4Zf.74287 > > That focal lengths change the perspective of the image is a myth. > > see beach bums fun photos It isn't the focal length, it's the angle of view combined with being about 1 inch away from the person. If my 200mm would focus this close you would get a similar effect. SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com >> As for portraits >> traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you want >> just the face. Shorter focal lengths make the features exaggerated. Use >> 28mm someone will have a smallish face and a huge nose. > > That's a myth. I've just seen your fun photos. What are you like? "ian lincoln" <dragonslayer@whocares.com> wrote in message news:XV4Zf.74283 > I've just seen your fun photos. What are you like? What am I like? I'm best described as a lovable goof ball. :) SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com >> As for portraits >> traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://hannemyr.com/photo/crop.html#per No, it's not a myth. He says it himself. "Distance controls perspective". If you want to fill the frame with someone's face, you have to get a lot closer with a 28 than with a 50. So you can shoot with the 28 at the same distance as the 50 and then crop and lose sharpness due to fewer pixels in the image, or you can shoot close enough to fill the frame and the the features will be less than flattering (usually), or you can shoot with the 50 and fill the frame. >> You get what you pay for. > > Sometimes. The fixed focal length lenses provide very high quality for > less $$$ at the minor expense of convenience. If you consider having to change the lens to change the focal length "convenience". In some cases it is, in some it isn't. >> Its why not only depth of field but image >> quality usually picks up with the smaller apertures. > > Image quality with today's technology is more likely related to the skill > of the person taking the photo than to the equipment they're using. You are confusing vision with technical issues. In a sense the quality of the photo has _always_ depended more on the photographer than the equipment. Look at Matthew Brady for example. But that is not the same as sharpness and contrast, both of which can be affected by aperture. >> As for IS and USM, usm is most useful if you really must operate quietly > or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ian must be a tripod salesman. <g> Note what he said--"for formal portraiture". This is where you set up the camera and the lighting and the backdrop and 1500 high school kids parade by and you try in vain to get each of them to assume something resembling a flattering pose, spend the next several months photoshopping out their collective zits, curse the fact that whatever you do about the tats and piercings _somebody_ is going to be mad at you, and finally after you've done your best you end up with as rum a collection of mug-shots as ever you've seen. For that the weight of the equipment doesn't matter too much. And yes, to those of you who are humor-challenged, I'm being facetious. >> If you are feeling very rich the 24-70 2.8L is one of the best in the > market >> and given the cropping factor is long enough for your needs. > > Agree. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >> As for portraits > >> traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you want [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > features will be less than flattering (usually), or you can shoot with the > 50 and fill the frame. Distance, not focal length. Yes, you have to be in different positions to fill the frame with the same focal length on different sized sensor/film, but that's not changing the focal length, that's changing the position. Ian attributed exagerated features to short focal lengths - like 28mm, but on an APS sized sensor 28mm is nearly in the normal range. > > Image quality with today's technology is more likely related to the skill > > of the person taking the photo than to the equipment they're using. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equipment. Look at Matthew Brady for example. But that is not the same as > sharpness and contrast, both of which can be affected by aperture. I'm not confusing anything, I just don't automatically associate sharpness and contrast with image quality. IOW, you know what I was getting at. ;) > >> Especially for formal portraiture. Don't bother with > >> anything cheap or made of plastic. > > > > Ian must be a tripod salesman. <g> > > Note what he said--"for formal portraiture". Note that the <g> means I was having a bit of fun with Ian because he is suggesting an expensive tripod. :) > This is where you set up the > camera and the lighting and the backdrop and 1500 high school kids parade [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > done your best you end up with as rum a collection of mug-shots as ever > you've seen. For that the weight of the equipment doesn't matter too much. I would use the heavy tripod to beat myself to death. <g> > And yes, to those of you who are humor-challenged, I'm being facetious. Me too. :) SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com >> >> As for portraits >> >> traditional focal lengths are 70-105 maybe a tiny bit longer if you [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Ian attributed exagerated features to short focal lengths - like 28mm, but > on an APS sized sensor 28mm is nearly in the normal range. While it's a real distinction, it doesn't alter the practical result. >> > Image quality with today's technology is more likely related to the > skill [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'm not confusing anything, I just don't automatically associate sharpness > and contrast with image quality. IOW, you know what I was getting at. ;) "Image quality" and "artistic merit" are not the same in my opinion. Image quality is to me a technical issue, and high image quality can be a liability in some cases. There are lenses out there that are designed specifically to reduce image quality so as to improve artistic merit--look at the Lietz Thambar for example. >> >> Especially for formal portraiture. Don't bother with >> >> anything cheap or made of plastic. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I would use the heavy tripod to beat myself to death. <g> Well, you see, that's why you use a _heavy_ tripod. It has to be too heavy to be useful as a bludgeon, otherwise you'll use it to beat to death either yourself or the subjects. >> And yes, to those of you who are humor-challenged, I'm being facetious. > > Me too. :) Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message > > I'm not confusing anything, I just don't automatically associate sharpness > > and contrast with image quality. IOW, you know what I was getting at. ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > specifically to reduce image quality so as to improve artistic merit--look > at the Lietz Thambar for example. And the Canon 18-55mm "kit" lens. <g> > >> flattering pose, spend the next several months photoshopping out their > >> collective zits, curse the fact that whatever you do about the tats and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to be useful as a bludgeon, otherwise you'll use it to beat to death either > yourself or the subjects. Reminds me of Cartman trying to kill Kyle with a wiffle bat out on Starks Pond. :) "Just close your eyes and slip into sweet unconciousness" SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com > "Image quality" and "artistic merit" are not the same in my opinion. Image > quality is to me a technical issue, and high image quality can be a > liability in some cases. There are lenses out there that are designed > specifically to reduce image quality so as to improve artistic merit--look > at the Lietz Thambar for example. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EnCa&tag= >> Brads_an_n00b: >>> im trying to figure out what i need to buy for what. At the moment >>> im looking >>> 4 a good lens for people shots, and one with a bit of zoom on it. <snip> . > A quality sturdy heavy tripod is a good investment. Especially for > formal portraiture. Don't bother with anything cheap or made of > plastic. > If you are feeling very rich the 24-70 2.8L is one of the best in > the > market and given the cropping factor is long enough for your needs. 24-70 2.8L works good: EOS 20D 55/88 mm 1/160 f/8.0 ISO 400 140K crop: http://www.fototime.com/F4344BB78F6831B/orig.jpg 1020K full frame: http://www.fototime.com/7122241FFC96B05/orig.jpg More 20D examples, various lenses http://www.fototime.com/inv/F67D21B90925165 SignatureFrank ess > Brads_an_n00b: > > im trying to figure out what i need to buy for what. At the moment im looking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a portrait lense, although different photographers have different > preferences there. I like my 50 F/1.8, but it is by no means a "walk around" lens for the 20D. The field of view is severely compressed. IMO, a much more appropriate suggestion for the 20D is the 35mm F/2. http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=151&m odelid=7299 SignatureMark Mostly photography... http://www.marklauter.com The lens *is* the picture. A good, cheap 50/1.8 or 1.4 will be really sharp and easy to work with. You can get a little closer crop and maintain quality by adding a quality 1.4x converter. The Sigma 1.4x APO is one to consider. Or get a quality 28-85 or 28-105 zoom. With the longer top end you'll get the sharpest images and abilities in the middle focal length range. Both of these approaches are a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated portrait lens and will produce quality results. Collin > Ive not long ago purchased an Canon eos 20D. I was wondering b4 i go and > spend alot of money on a lens or 2 just how important the lens is for picture > quality.. It may sound like a n00b question .. well thats because it is. The lens used to be FAR more important than the body for picture quality; it is, after all, the only thing that actually "touches" the light. These days, with the sensors build into the body, the body is more important than it used to be, but the lens is *still* the really key element in the process. In addition to image quality, there are issues like focus speed and accuracy to consider. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> Thanks for all your input. I went out and bought 24-70 2.8 (at last all that saving payed off, and youre right it was kinda steep), 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM ( was reduced by $350 and was recommended by a mag i picked up) and a 1.4x extender. Thanks very much :) P.S Any other accessories that are a must have feel free to mention. (Never did do things by halves) Again thanks for all your help Brad > Ive not long ago purchased an Canon eos 20D. I was wondering b4 i go and > spend alot of money on a lens or 2 just how important the lens is for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Brad T Could you repeat the question in something other than pidgin? > Ive not long ago purchased an Canon eos 20D. I was wondering b4 i go and > spend alot of money on a lens or 2 just how important the lens is for picture [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > im trying to figure out what i need to buy for what. At the moment im looking > 4 a good lens for people shots, and one with a bit of zoom on it. Canon 50/1.8 Canon 28/2.8 Olympus 0.7x Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.